Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 13 August 2013

Hugo Schwyzer

• Articles for deletion/Hugo Schwyzer
• Articles for deletion/Hugo Schwyzer (2nd nomination)

Hugo Schwyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP issues. This article was previously deleted in February 2012 as non-notable; it's now a little more complicated than that, as the amount of sources that exist suggests he probably passes WP:BIO. However, he's a pretty minor academic, and the sheer amount of negative content in this biography I think justifies deleting it under WP:IAR.

This brief article contains descriptions of the subject's sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder and attempted suicide. That amount of negative information would be questionable in a biography of a highly notable celebrity; on a minor academic, it's downright awful. If it weren't so well-sourced, I'd have already nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. As it is, the best argument I can make for deleting it is WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Misplaced Pages cannot unring the bell of publicity. The references in the article clearly indicate that this person is now a high-profile public figure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. The number of high-quality sources for the things in the article suggest that he really is notable for them. Some attention to the quality of sources in the article may be a good idea, per WP:BLP: e.g. source , for his circumcision, is primary, and that part should either be removed or its sourcing improved. But most of the article looks ok in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. If he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now! That Damn Snipergirl 04:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete There are 24 references at the article, but most of them are tabloids (LA Weekly, New York Daily News) and blogs (Jezebel), not Reliable Sources. This is not the kind of coverage we should base an article on, particularly not a BLP and even more particularly a mostly negative BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. He probably meets the GNG, but we have IAR for a reason. There's very little encyclopedic content in this article as it stands right now, and there's unlikely to be any in the near future. Little harm is done by deleting the article, a lot more harm could be done by leaving it up. I see no value in leaving up a highly negative BLP about someone who has recently tried to commit suicide over their coverage on the internet. A few months down the road when things have settled down, the immediate incident is beyond us, and there are more high quality sources available I would not necessarily have a bias against recreation. We could even work on a draft immediately in non-article space and get it up when it's more appropriately balanced towards his life's work and not the last two weeks. His actions are absolutely inexcusable, but we should still treat him with the basic decency that we should treat all of our BLPs with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep -- per Slate and New York Magazine coverage -- these are not tabloids by any stretch. But I agree with Kevin Gorman that IAR, common sense, and common decency as well as fighting against recentism bias might mean that stubifying to a very short article and then when everything has passed in a few weeks or months, seeing what should be restored makes sense. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and also I'd like to note that some person is unilitarely deleting mosty of the article becuase "it has the existence to cause actual harm to a living person". --Niemti (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Two people != one person. And last I checked the way to resolve an article content disute was on the article's talk page, not by making snarky comments in an AfD discussion. And in all seriousness, what potential harm can be done if all the tabloid crap is removed until this AfD runs its course? Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not tabloid, also not tabloid, not tabloid too, and now stop censor-vandalizng Misplaced Pages because of someone's feelings or whatever. --Niemti (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please either strike your accusation of vandalism or take it to an appropriate administrative forum to be dealt with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who originally stubbed the article, and I did it due to WP:BLP concerns. People can see the explanation and make comment at the article's talk page. (I don't have a firm view on whether the article should be kept or deleted). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not "accusations", it's factual. There is controversial content, but it is being discussed - right here (and it's not a one-sided discussion), but you can't go and simply delete it just because you don't like it and want to censor because whatever reasons - that is vandalism. But speaking of tabloids, (it's actualy basically all his own confession being quoted). WP:BLP is about proper sources and facts. --Niemti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Article is very well sourced by very reliable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I'm afraid I can't see "sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder or attempted suicide" in the article as it stands. It has apparently been deleted? In looking for it, I find lots of articles and interviews by Schwyzer himself about some of those; what most of us consider very personal things. But he's the one writing and talking about them. If someone had been writing this stuff about him, I'd certainly consider deleting it out of ignore-all-rules. But it's his personal life, and if he wants to expose it, we shouldn't be nannies and do it "for his own good". He's got an article on something like that on his own site - we shouldn't be the TSA agent in this picture. So we should consider the article the way we normally do, for notability, by sourcing. And it looks like even the nominator says our article is well sourced. So we keep it. If there are some items that need deletion, we can deal with them individually. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look at one of the earlier revisions. The article got stubbified earlier today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per David Eppstein and others. Well sourced, and plenty of additional sources can be added and undoubtedly even more will become available in the following weeks and months. The controversy at hand here is all quite verifiable and doubtful that BLP is being violated. Laval (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Laval contrib-stalked me here because he's annoyed at me for asking him to stop accusing other editors of being scientology shills. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates